A Reuters article reports that, “California sued six of the world’s largest automakers over global warming on Wednesday, charging that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have caused billions of dollars in damages.”

“The injuries have caused the people to suffer billions of dollars in damages, including millions of dollars of funds expended to determine the extent, location and nature of future harm and to prepare for and mitigate those harms, and billions of dollars of current harm to the value of flood control infrastructure and natural resources,” it said.
…
[California Attorney General] Lockyer — a Democratic candidate for state treasurer in the November election — said the lawsuit states that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing “millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide.”

Carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases have been linked to global warming.

This lawsuit is the first of its kind, and I was dismayed to see environmentalist nutballs press to do damage on yet another front. Even on a superficial level, it is so arbitrary: why not sue the car owners for driving them, or the car dealers for selling them, or the gas stations for fueling them, or the oil companies for supplying them. And if it is about carbon dioxide, then why are they picking on cars rather than other sources, such as all the people, pets, and animals we raise for food? What legal or moral principle drives California to pick this particular target vs. any of those others?

But of course this is really driven by the science (or lack thereof) behind the Global Warming movement, which is why we may well end up thanking them for this move.

Remember the recent lawsuit regarding Intelligent Design in the science classroom (a.k.a., “Scopes II” or the “Dover Panda Trial”)? The top theorists and proponents from the ID movement were put on the stand and under oath, where they were definitively exposed as dishonest, fraudulent, creationist pseudo-scientists with a religious agenda. Dover was a crushing blow to the ID movement: confident and influential from long taking epistemological liberties in the court of public opinion, they were finally brought into a context where obfuscation, shoddy reasoning, and populist appeals carry no weight. (I highly recommend reading that decision. Written by a Bush-appointed judge, I didn’t expect much and ended up impressed with his ability to grasp and relate the scientific and philosophical issues. His obvious anger at their mendacity was icing on the cake.)

So the Church of Global Warming wants to be put on the stand? I say that’s great! Prepare for another Dover.